Tuesday, July 16, 2013

---- YOU WILL BE INFORMED . . On The Killing . . !!

Kolom IBRAHIM ISA

Monday, 15 July, 2013

---- YOU WILL
BE
INFORMED . . On The Killing . . !!

---- “The Film Maker Oppenheimer: I’ve
managed to create something that is effecting real positive
change in
the country.”

* * *

Joshua Oppenheimer,
reminded me, of his interview with Greg Spring, on the
documentary
film “The Act of Killing”. A documentary, in which the
murderers themselves acted as “superstars” in the film, ----
Showing proudly how they killed, in North Sumatra, Indonesia,
--- thousands upon thousands of innocent people, clearing
thereby the
way for THE NEW ORDER regime of General Suharto
(1965/'66/'67).

You will be informed
of
the attrocities committed by gangsters, in coordination with
the
military and some others in collaboration with the army under
General
Suharto.

Greg
Spring:
--- “Not
only have they avoided punishment, but some have retained
influential
positions within Indonesian politics and public life. This was
helped
in part by Cold War politics, as the subsequent media coverage
in the
West reported the genocide as a victory against Communism. And
whilst
wider Indonesian society knows what really happened, crippled
by
fear, it remains quiet.”

* * *

In the latter part of his interview,
Joshua Oppenheimer, underlined that:

“The film has transformed how
the country is talking about these events. They still ban film
screenings in Indonesia, which makes it a crime to do so.
That’s
then an excuse for the military to attack screenings with
total
impunity. So to avoid that we arranged special screenings at
the
National Human Rights Commission in Jakarta, for Indonesia’s
leading journalists, film producers, publishers, writers,
historians
and so on. Everybody loved the film, and they felt that they
needed
to do something with it.

The editors of Indonesia’s
largest publication felt the need to break their silence, as
up until
now, they were very much part of this rotten system. And I
think
seeing how broken Anwar was, they felt the need to speak out.
I guess
they didn’t want to grow old as perpetrators of these crimes.
So
they came forward with their own accounts of what happened at
the
time.

They also went out in to country
and picked up countless testimonies of those that killed, and
produced a double edition of Tempo
magazine, which was essentially an Act of
Killing
edition. So it’s set the tone, and the press now openly
investigate
and report these crimes, which just wasn’t happening before.
We
also arranged fifty or more private screenings throughout the
country
on the 10th Dec, which is Human Rights Day. Now, I really
wouldn’t
have any idea how many screenings have taken place, but it’s a
lot.

That is the most satisfying thing
about
finishing this picture after so many years. I’ve managed to create
something that is effecting real positive change in the country.
The
most disappointing thing is that I can’t be there to experience it
all and take part. This is my love letter to Indonesia.

* * *

The Act Of Killing – An
Interview with Joshua Oppenheimer

Posted on July 10, 2013 by Greg Spring
Joshua Oppenheimer’s brave and inspired documentary The Act
of Killing, focuses on a brutal period in Indonesia’s
history
during the mid 1960’s. Following a failed military coup, roaming
gangs along with the military were guilty of killing between
500,000
and 2 million people that they believed to be Communist
sympathisers.
A morbid figure not just for its sheer volume, but also its
ambiguity.
Oppenheimer sets out to expose the impunity that the perpetrators
of these horrific crimes still receive to this day. Not only have
they avoided punishment, but some have retained influential
positions
within Indonesian politics and public life. This was helped in
part
by Cold War politics, as the subsequent media coverage in the West
reported the genocide as a victory against Communism. And whilst
wider Indonesian society knows what really happened, crippled by
fear, it remains quiet.
The Act of Killing serves as a political expose, but is
elevated to something truly unique when we meet Anwar Congo, a
gangster turned paramilitary leader. Anwar was personally
responsible
for the murder of over 1,000 people, and countless others were
brutally killed on his order. He freely admits that as a young man
he
killed for pleasure, but the Anwar we see in this film is deeply
conflicted and haunted, attempting to keep the demons at bay with
a
mixture of denial, ecstasy, marijuana and alcohol.
As we venture in to the deepest recesses of Anwar’s soul, the
film becomes a surreal meditation of the human condition. Prompted
by
the collective openness of the perpetrators, Oppenheimer offers
Anwar
and his friends the opportunity to make a movie about the crimes
that
they committed, shooting each scene in a style of their choosing.
It
is a chilling insight in to the minds of those responsible, and
how
they have both coped with and justified their brutal actions. The
line between reality and fiction rarely reveals itself throughout.
The result is something profound beyond words. It exposes on many
levels, and leaves us with a number of uncomfortable questions
about
the Cold War, media collusion, impunity, and unimaginable human
cruelty. And artistically, this film will change how we think
about
the documentary form. It will be a yard stick for originality in
the
years to come. Quite simply, you just have to make time to see
this picture.Director Joshua Oppenheimer talks to Greg
Spring about making the film, his own experiences with Anwar and
working with two documentarian heavyweights in Errol Morris and
Werner Herzog.

GREG SPRING: Can you tell me what drew you to
Indonesia, and that period in the country’s history?JOSHUA OPPENHEIMER: It was quite random how my association
with Indonesia began. I was asked to make The Globalisation
Tapes, which was a film about plantation workers struggling
to
organise a union. Unions were illegal at the time, which certainly
wasn’t an Indonesian phenomenon. So I could have been sent
anywhere, India, Bangladesh or Columbia. But I was sent to a place
just outside of Medan, where I ended up filming The Act of
Killing.GS: At what point did you become aware of the
genocide that had occurred there?JO: While we were filming the Globalisation
Tapes, we found that the government had been spraying a
herbicide that was killing the workers. Naturally they wanted to
organise a union to stop the use of the herbicide. We found that
their biggest obstacle was fear, because their parents and
grandparents had been in a union until 1965 and were accused of
being
Communists and subsequently murdered. They were concerned that
history was going to repeat itself. So that’s where I first became
aware of this presence of fear. The situation felt extraordinary,
but
in another sense it isn’t all that unusual. Those in power at the
time have retained power, and used fear to rule. That fear means
they
can be exploited and that is part of the reason that everything we
in
the West buy is so cheap. I think that the reality that you see in
The Act of Killing isn’t some distant far off reality;
it’s the underbelly of our own reality. That’s what makes this
personal for all of us. Whether we like it or not, we rely on men
like Anwar for our everyday living. A certain part of our
existence
relies on the suffering off others, and that damages us. And there
was a connection for me too. My own family had narrowly escaped
the
holocaust, and it sort of felt to me that I was now in a place
where
the Nazis had won. I felt that I needed to give it whatever it
took
to tell this story.GS: And you went back to Indonesia in 2003 to
began work on the film? At what point did you encounter Anwar?JO: That’s right, the film has been seven years
in the making. We went back in 2003, and then in 2004 we started
filming with the perpetrators of the genocide. It was here where I
first encountered their boasting. They were only too happy to
recount
the story as they saw it. I then met Anwar in 2005, and once I
started filming him and his people, they offered to take me to the
places where they had murdered people, where they would launch in
to
this spontaneous demonstration of what they did. This pride again
is
extraordinary and it isn’t. The atrocities at the time were
largely
reported by the media, both home and abroad, as a victory against
Communism. They reported it as good news, so these people still
feel
they have nothing to be ashamed of. They insist to themselves and
to
others that what happened wasn’t wrong, which they know isn’t the
case. But to admit it to themselves would mean they would have to
look in the mirror and see a murderer.GS: What was Anwar’s understanding of your
intentions when making this film?JO: When I met Anwar my pitch was very straight
forward. I said to him that he was a part of one of the biggest
mass
killings in history, your life has been shaped by it, and I asked,
“Do you want to show me what you’ve done?” I will film the
process and put it together in a new form of documentary. A
documentary of the mind.GS: So Anwar was aware of the film’s direction
from the start?JO: Absolutely. He watched each scene back as we
progressed with filming, and he also saw the finished film. He was
very moved. Anwar doesn’t feel betrayed. He feels it shows what it
is like to be him, and that it was honest. Adi (Adi Zulkadry, a
peer of Anwar’s, who was involved in the killings in much the same
way as Anwar was but seems to lack the same remorse that Anwar now
carries) kept saying that we were making them look bad, and that
we
shouldn’t be making the film. But Anwar continues and presses on,
because he is trying to deal with his pain. He knows that the
agenda
wasn’t to make him look heroic. And the method and form of the
film
wasn’t to get him to open up, it was a direct response to his
openness. It was in a sense a way of trying to understanding why
they
were so open. What I didn’t anticipate was the surreal
dramatisations. They came about due to Anwars love of movies. And
watching Anwar watch each scene back was quite incredible. He was
often unhappy with what he was seeing on screen, so he would
insist
on a new location, new costumes or a new hair do. He wasn’t
unhappy
with the scene, he was unhappy with facing down what he had done.
He’d never had to see it like this before, and that troubled him
deeply.GS: It appeared that there was a genuine
closeness
and trust between you both. The relationship must have been
conflicting for you?JO: It was conflicting; in the sense that I could
never forget the crimes that he and his friends committed. But at
the
same time I demanded of myself that I always see him as a human
being
that was capable of love and being loved. That is inherently
conflicting. And when I became close with Anwar, the horrendous
things he would tell me were horrifying in a different way for me.GS: All these things Anwar is telling you, the
apparent guilt he felt, how did that effect the direction of the
movie?JO: The motor for the whole film became Anwar’s
conscience. And because his conscience is the motor and the drive
behind each scene, the film then becomes this dark mirror through
which he finally realises what he really did. And it wasn’t the
point at which he says “I finally feel what my victims felt”, I
felt that was a dishonest moment and I told him as much. The
truest
moment is the scene in the movie where Anwar plays the victim.
That
was when he saw the unbridgeable abyss between his version of
events,
and the unspeakable horror he put people through. And that’s what
makes the film right? Film is not good at words, it’s good at
subtext and emotion and doubt. This a film where the characters
hardly ever believe a word they are saying. For me, great films
often
occur when the film maker doesn’t know what is about to happen.
For
me if you can envisage the whole picture before you make it, it’s
a
little dead on arrival.GS: There is a point in the film where we see
members of Pancasila Youth extorting money from Chinese shop
keepers.
It was intensely uncomfortable to watch, but for you to be there
must
have been difficult? I was really aware of you, and what it must
have
been like to be there.JO: There are three points in the film that raise
these ethical questions. Shortly before this encounter, we were at
a
production meeting where I said that I didn’t think we should film
this because we will be seen at the gangster’s personal TV crew.
But my Indonesian crew told me that we absolutely had to film it.
That we had a responsibility to do so as it happens every day. So,
what happened after we filmed each interaction, I told the crew to
go
on ahead and that I would get a release form signed. What I was
really doing was telling the shop keepers why we were there, and
paying them back too. We visited over fifty shops that day, so it
cost us a lot of money. Perhaps I shouldn’t have, because it could
have put us in danger. But I felt that I should. I’m not a film
maker that will stop at nothing to get what I want, even though it
appears that this film went in to areas that perhaps haven’t been
explored before.GS: It didn’t strike me that you set out to make an
overtly political film, but nonetheless, The Act of Killing
shines a light on a rather grim political culture that still
exists.
Would you feel comfortable going back to Indonesia since the
film’s
release?JO: The high ranking politicians in Indonesia may
well feel betrayed, and if they didn’t feel betrayed then I
haven’t
done my job properly. So whilst I think I could get in to
Indonesia,
I probably wouldn’t be able to get out. But I’d correct one
thing. I did set out to make a political film. I wasn’t trying to
bring a man to recognise the severity of his crimes. That just
came
about and happened to be the mechanism that revealed the horror
most
fully and perfectly. But I intended to work in collaboration with
survivors and to highlight a regime of impunity. Anwar’s
conscience
was a sort of necessary accident. Like so much in non fiction
film.
That’s the reason I’m a film maker. It gives you a chance to
explore the world and stumble across the unexpected. But what I
intended on making was a political film.GS: Can you tell me a little about working with
both Errol Morris and Werner Herzog. At what point did they get
involved?JO: Both Werner and Errol have been really
wonderful and caring. They both put tremendous energy in trying to
put the word out to say that this is an important work of art, and
not just a political film. Werner came on board in 2011 after he
saw
the director’s cut of the film. I remember he said to me that I
shouldn’t cut the film down. I said we had to, that we had
promised
broadcasters the 90 minute version. He still prefers the longer
version though, as do we all. Errol came on board earlier than
that,
in 2010, on the basis of some early sequences of the film. He was
really captivated by the project, and he helped us raise the last
bit
of finance for the film. He has been an energetic force since
coming
on board. But they compliment each other so well. There are
different
things they most love about it. Werner really appreciates the
surrealism of it all, where as Errol is more taken by the tricky
philosophical question posed by the film. You know, what is in our
nature.GS: Open discourse about the atrocities has been
sorely lacking in Indonesia up until now. Have you heard how the
film
is adding to that conversation since it’s release?JO: The film has transformed how the country is
talking about these events. They still ban film screenings in
Indonesia, which makes it a crime to do so. That’s then an excuse
for the military to attack screenings with total impunity. So to
avoid that we arranged special screenings at the National Human
Rights Commission in Jakarta, for Indonesia’s leading journalists,
film producers, publishers, writers, historians and so on.
Everybody
loved the film, and they felt that they needed to do something
with
it. The editors of Indonesia’s largest publication felt the need
to
break their silence, as up until now, they were very much part of
this rotten system. And I think seeing how broken Anwar was, they
felt the need to speak out. I guess they didn’t want to grow old
as
perpetrators of these crimes. So they came forward with their own
accounts of what happened at the time. They also went out in to
country and picked up countless testimonies of those that killed,
and
produced a double edition of Tempo magazine, which was
essentially an Act of Killing edition. So it’s set the
tone, and the press now openly investigate and report these
crimes,
which just wasn’t happening before. We also arranged fifty or more
private screenings throughout the country on the 10th Dec, which
is
Human Rights Day. Now, I really wouldn’t have any idea how many
screenings have taken place, but it’s a lot.
That is the most satisfying thing about finishing this picture
after so many years. I’ve managed to create something that is
effecting real positive change in the country. The most
disappointing
thing is that I can’t be there to experience it all and take part.
This is my love letter to Indonesia.